Actress Katherine Heigl has a reputation for being difficult. At first glance, the $6 million lawsuit she filed against Duane Reade, a popular New York City drugstore chain, may seem like just another instance of Heigl not playing nice with others. But with strong legal precedent behind her, she could very well win her case and find vindication.
@DuaneReade’s costly tweet
On March 18, Duane Reade tweeted a picture of Katherine Heigl, known for her roles on Grey’s Anatomy and 27 Dresses, leaving one of its stores with the following caption: “Love a quick #DuaneReade run? Even @KatieHeigl can’t resist shopping #NYC’s favorite drugstore.”
Heigl was not happy to have her image hijacked and filed a lawsuit in a New York federal court the following month, seeking $6 million in damages. The lawsuit argues that the Walgreens-owned drugstore chain used her image for commercial gain without her permission.
The Lanham Act protects celebrities
According to the lawsuit, the tweet violates the Lanham Act. The 1946 act addresses trademarks and false advertising and allowed several celebrities to successfully sue companies for false endorsement or false association. Successful cases show that the use of a celebrity’s image could confuse the public, as it may appear there’s an endorsement deal when none exists.
One famous and recent case was 2009’s Michael Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores Inc., in which the basketball superstar sued the grocery chain for $5 million for using his image. Jewel ran an ad congratulating Jordan on his induction into the NBA Hall of Fame. Jordan argued that the store was trying to make money by associating the store with his image, while the store argued that the ad was protected free speech under the First Amendment. Jordan ultimately won.
Other successful celebrity plaintiffs include Tom Waits, Rosa Parks and George Wendt and John Ratzenberger of the television show Cheers. The courts have regularly upheld celebrities’ rights to privacy and control over the use of their image for commercial purposes.
Does Heigl have a shot?
Considering the success of similar cases, attorney Andrew Udin in Forbes says yes, Heigl could win. Duane Reade used her image to make money, and the public could easily be confused about whether or not she was paid.
Attorney Marc S. Reiner in The Wall Street Journal disagrees. He does not believe consumers would assume Heigl had endorsed the drugstore.
No matter the verdict, Duane Reade has received a lot of publicity out of a single tweet – it’s just not how they intended.
The case is still pending.
Photo: DFree / Shutterstock.com
